Seòmar agus comataidhean

That work will continue to be a critical part of the industry. You create jobs and talent and offer diversity that we do not get from anywhere else. What you do is really impactful.

It comes out very clearly that, at the moment, Channel 4 is doing well in terms of production across the UK. It makes a profit. I want to focus particularly on the film sector, because the films that are produced and commissioned by Channel 4 appear more diverse but they also appear to be award-winning across the UK. Can you comment on that aspect? It feels like there is a huge potential loss here, if you look at the impact on the companies that potentially would take over, because it appears that they would lose some of their own internal production. It feels like a lose-lose for everybody in terms of geography, private businesses and quality. John McVay, do you want to kick off first? You have quite a lot of evidence.

It has been good to hear your evidence today. I was struck when I read the justification for privatisation from Nadine Dorries. She said that it would

“give Channel 4 the tools and freedom to flourish and thrive as a public service broadcaster long into the future.”

The evidence that we have had today is that, although you are not for profit, you make money—you made £74 million last year that was reinvested into the sector—and we have had a lot of evidence about the positive impact that you make in Scotland in production, in the quality of filmmaking, in training and skills, and in diversity.

To kick off, Alex Mahon, could you put on record for us today what Channel 4 has presented as its alternative to privatisation? I understand that you have given that feedback to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but it would be good to get it on the record how you would want to continue to deliver the success that you have had in the past.

It was very useful to get your written evidence. I will ask you a couple of questions about the timing. I understand that, when asked, almost one third of the population was not aware of the census particularly given the change of timing to look at the digital issue. My understanding is that, when the 2021 census was carried out in the rest of the UK, there was a safety net approach to try to include people. You made a big deal of the digital response rate, but to have to send out 600,000 paper forms is not going for the safety net approach to target areas of lower-income households and a disproportionately older population, and also rural areas.

Can you give us a comment about that, and can you give us comparable statistics on local authority turnouts in terms of households and individuals? I am making sure that the local authority turnout data that we have is comparable. How are you going to go below the local authority level to make sure that people who did not respond to the census, or areas where people did not respond disproportionately do not miss out? Will you be producing evidence or analysing the census output areas so that we get accurate knowledge about who has missed out in the census?

It does not quite answer the question, because I was asking for the comparable figures from local authority level data for the 2022 census and the 2011 census. I am particularly interested in credibility. I have looked at the statistics, and I want to double-check that my interpretation is right. The gap is significant—for example, the figure for West Dunbartonshire was 11 per cent down from 2011. However, I want to check that I am using the right figures in terms of households and individual responses.

I want to go back to the information about people not knowing about the census or their personal responsibility. There would be even more of an impact if, several weeks into the census programme, a third of the population were still not aware of their obligations or the impact of the census.

All that goes back to the credibility of the 2022 census, given the aspirations to hit a response rate of around 94 per cent. What do those figures do for the effectiveness and usefulness of this year’s census?

So, in your view, there is no issue about the credibility of the census. When I visited with your enumerators, I was struck by the fact that I was in a very significant area and, with just under two weeks to go, there was a turnout rate of 57 per cent. It just did not tick the box of 94 per cent. How will those missing households and missing people be accounted for so that their needs are not ignored in future investment or Government policy? Even after today’s answers, I have significant worries about that.

That is a very helpful summary. On one level, it is a case of building on success. I find the privatisation proposal hard to understand, particularly given that Channel 4 is successful for the whole of the UK—it is almost like levelling up in practice. You provide evidence that it works to spread investment across the UK.

Can you briefly talk about the importance of the quality of film production on the ground in terms of the people in the film sector, the artists and the people behind the cameras? Other witnesses have told us about the impact of the diversity of Channel 4’s programming. You have won a number of BAFTAs. Do you want to say a bit about the success of the film side, which is critical, given the difficulty of doing film production, because it is very expensive? Although you operate in a not-for-profit context, you manage to make a profit. Could you say a little about that?

I reiterate that it would be much appreciated if we could get answers to some of those questions, because they are now issues, not future issues.

Highland Council is looking for clarity on funding of the supersponsorship scheme. There is a list of issues in the submission from COSLA, and it would be really good to get a set of answers on those. For example, it talks about the fact that host councils do not have the capacity to arrange transport for matches to be put with their hosts, and there is not a model elsewhere in the UK for doing so. Where we are volunteering and we need to come up with new schemes, that all needs to be done urgently, because it is not happening at the moment.

That is very useful. I just wanted to get that on the record. Having met people who support Ukrainians, I was aware that there were active discussions on doing that to ensure that those experiences are not lost and that there is accountability in future. Thank you for clarifying that.

I am in strong agreement with that stand with Ukraine sentiment. I can tell that your having been across to Poland and seen the reality on the ground has had a personal impact on you.

My questions are about how you are monitoring the supersponsor scheme. What does success look like for you? The feedback that I have had and the submissions that we have had from representatives of different organisations, such as JustRight Scotland, COSLA and Glasgow health and social care partnership, indicate that there is a real gap between our collective ambitions and the capacity of local authorities to deliver.

What monitoring are you doing on the impact of people being stuck in hotels for weeks before they are linked up with a sponsor? We got feedback from the consul general that there is a particular issue for women with children, for whom being stuck in a hotel is totally wrong. I have also picked up the particular issue that, when people get stuck in a hotel, the roots that they put down are with the Ukrainian support community, which makes it even harder once they are given an allocation if it is not in the same area because they have already put down roots and have support.

What are you doing to speed up the matching process? I would like a comment from you about people being stuck in hotels. The experience of the Afghan and Syrian communities is that people are still stuck in temporary accommodation, which causes huge issues for access to schools, health services, post-traumatic stress disorder support and, particularly, NHS dentistry. Hosts have got in touch with me who are really worried about the Ukrainians they are trying to support. They are asking who they should contact because it is hard to get those links on the ground.